sn_graph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose traversal cost, truncation behavior at the default limit of 200, or what 'depth' actually does when walking the graph.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the five modes packed in parentheses. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or restated from the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. But for an 8-parameter graph traversal tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves key operational questions (how deep is safe, what gets truncated, what identifiers go in sys_id vs target vs model) unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does add genuine meaning for 'action' (glossing each enum value beyond the bare names) and hints at 'kind' via 'a table, field or script'. However depth, limit, model, sys_id, target and direction are left completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (CMDB Service Graph) and enumerates five concrete query modes with plain-language glosses, e.g. 'dependents (what breaks if this CI goes away)'. An agent can tell it is a read/query tool for graph relationships, though nothing distinguishes it from the schema-oriented sibling sn_schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The action list implicitly tells the agent which mode corresponds to which question, which is more than most tools offer. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sn_schema/sn_aggregate guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a sys_id exist first), and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.